The ICC Under Fire: Critiques and Defences

The ICC has faced sustained criticism from several directions. In its first decade, every situation it formally investigated was in Africa, leading some African leaders to accuse it of targeting the continent; the African Union in 2013 called for sitting heads of state not to be prosecuted.

Defenders respond that most of those African cases were referred by the affected governments themselves, and that the Court's first investigation outside Africa, in Georgia, opened in 2016. Burundi and the Philippines became the first states to withdraw from the Statute, effective in 2017 and 2019, and other states have announced withdrawals since; South Africa and The Gambia announced withdrawals in 2016 and then reversed them.

Others criticise the Court for being slow and expensive, with relatively few convictions. Powerful states that are not members remain largely beyond its reach, which critics call selective justice. Supporters argue that the Court's existence still deters some crimes and encourages national prosecutions. Evaluating the ICC fairly requires weighing its real limits against the absence of any alternative permanent court.